I love how sometimes, the math that is used to describe certain things in classical mechanics is the same math that is used to describe certain things in circuitry. For example, if I remember correctly, the math that is used to describe a spring mass system is extremely similar to the math that is used to describe an RLC circuit. How fun is that?

@Ethan Renckly Pretty cool. Like pulse tube cryocoolers have a resonant frequency like an LC circuit. And impedance matching is kind of like a perfectly inelastic collision between two objects.

@@YSPACElabs I only knew about half of those things because of my AP physics teacher in high-school, as well as the engineering classes I took in high-school (Principles Of Engineering and Digital Electronics). I'll try to remember the rest of that stuff for Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering which I will no doubt take in college. So, thanks, I guess.

@@ethanrenckly787 The pulse tube cryocooler info was from Hyperspace Pirate, and the impedance matching was from stuff I read online and from my own intuition. It makes sense, so it might be correct.

@@YSPACElabs Hey, to be fair, most of the more random stuff I don't learn in school (which is most of it) I learn by reading online. I also want to mention that most of the math I know beyond pre-calculus was either taught to me by my AP physics teacher or self taught, which means I understand concepts beyond calculus 3 (my favorite math is complex analysis, specifically iterative complex analysis). It's also due to this fact that despite my understanding of these concepts (with the exception of basic complex analysis), I can't solve a lot beyond pre-calculus by hand. Wolfram Alpha is a very useful tool.

Firehose water hammer 😳

He glossed over the important part. The kinetic energy of the water cannot exceed the potential energy it had when it was in the bucket. So on the face of it it would appear that even if you made this 100% efficient and recovered all of the kinetic energy, it could never pump water higher than the source. The key is that this is only true for kinetic energy per unit volume of water. By setting a long train of water in the pipe moving, you're able to harvest the kinetic energy from the entire volume of water in the pipe, to pump a small volume of water higher than the source. It's analogous to dropping a basketball with a tennis ball stacked on top of it. When the basketball hits the ground and tries to bounce, its kinetic energy gets transferred into the tennis ball, causing the tennis ball to fly much higher than the drop height. Whereas if you just dropped a basketball, it couldn't bounce higher than the drop height. That's why the waste water coming out the lower valve is important. Without it, this would happen just once, then the kinetic energy in the water remaining in the pipe would be insufficient to get it back up to the source bucket level (the basketball just rolls around on the ground instead of bouncing). And the whole thing would stop. By allowing water to bleed out the bottom, you allow the train of water in the pipe to build up to full kinetic energy again, so you can repeat the process.

The surge tank you're describing is actually also pictured. That tube on the left that is capped is filled with normal air (just like a surge tank) and it takes up some of the water hammer pressure. Once the valve is closed the air tries to return to it's normal pressure and pushes more water up the tube. This is why you see the ram closes so suddenly, but the release of water out the top is just a BIT more gradual. It's because of that little surge tank taking up some of the pressure. His setup doesn't really need it for the demo to work, but it's extremely important for people that are using ram pumps to move hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per year, in their hydroelectric off grid pelton systems.

The KZfaq channel “Practical Engineering” has a great video on Ram Pumps which is worth a look in my opinion (Also Water and Steam Hammer for more technical and non-ram pump applications)

I'm proud of your commit, sir. He could have made that analogy. Also: *He could have EASILY obtained efficiency data from this.* Also, he could have cut the rubber tubes to length.. It feels pretty lazy for the standards we've learned to expect from him, because it would have only taken him 10 more minutes plus 5 minutes of thinking to pull off a FAR better experiment than the one he did here. Him not even explaining what the original poster explained here was extra laziness.

because modern education is about training you to prepare for a dull tedious life of 9-5 workdays. they dont want you to think. how could knowing this be of any benefit to a bean counter stuck at a desk in a cubicle somewhere? you are just a number, a statistic. you want something that you wont find described anywhere? that uses basic physics? that is possibly THE most efficient engine ever devised by man? research "humphrey pump". think ram pump.. but add air, fuel, and an ignition source. pre ww1, was overlooked and forgotten due to the war... and as it only pumps water, it sort of seems useless. people forget about hydraulic power when confronted with concepts that require a bit of knowledge not supplied by the so called "education system".

It is well known mechanism, useful to pump water from streams.

It is forbidden knowledge. Dark Physics 🤫

in India - they don't teach it till 12th physics ; should be taught.

in India - they don't teach it till 12th physics ; should be taught.

its not free energy, you have to pour water into bucket, and if bucket size is big, manual filling won't work, so you will need a machine to fill bucket, and hence it's not free.

​@@altafnazirop literally stated that it was "...the CLOSEST we have to free energy." Don't be that guy.

presumably to help manage the water hammer going on in there.

If you reduce it too much the water can't get flowing fast enough to cause the water hammer effect that is pushing the water up to the top.

Like in the Great Pyramid

two things needed in this model to improve efficiency - 1) the feed pipe should be straight. 2) the feed pipe should be hard , not soft & elastic.

I'm interested in that myself. What it might be is basically an empty tube filled with air. Something like this can be used in household plumbing to prevent water hammer, the air acts like a spring because it is compressible. When the sudden pressure spike of the water comes through that second valve in the system, I think it might tend to compress the air in that tube and then the air will decompress more slowly and feed the water into the rest of the system where it exits from the top. It may be that without this the sudden pressures shake with shake the whole system and possibly waste the energy he's trying to use to lift the water.

@@NomadSoul76 oh wow! Thanks friend!!

lol no it won't.

@@seigeengine It won’t if you don’t do it, but it will work. I’ve done it. It’s not rocket surgery.

@@stumpbumpers "I defied physics" okay, bud

Also when in doubt, friction ruins all “perpetual motion machines”.

Perpetual motion is possible: spin a top in space. Push an object in space. 😅😅😅

​@@TheRainHarvester These may not be termed as nachines as energy can not be used for any utile purposes. Thanks for the examples.

Route the water from both sources so that it turns turbines connected to small generators connected those generators to a pump that pumps the waste water from the bottom back up to the bucket. You could even add a turbine and generator in the initial drop tube to get additional energy to add back in to the system. While is is still not going to be a perpetual motion machine, it will allow the system to run longer.

@@sudhakarg8921 my toddler is a perpetual motion machine! Actually, that’s not correct! We have to feed her food to function !

Absolutely yes, theoretically. Since you get a little over 3 psi for every 10 feet of liquid height (water) if your source is high enough, you could get very high pressure at your nozzle.

​@@CheMechanical33 feet equals 14.5 psi average, at a typical location slightly above sea level.

No, for the same reason that a wide column of water will not push a narrow column of water higher if they are connected at the bottom: they have the same pressure throughout their height.

@@areadenial2343 Yep, which is either very good or very bad news depending on what you're trying to accomplish. The good news is that if you're using a vertical pipe with a large cistern at the top to feed a turbine, for example a Pelton or Tesla turbine, with a narrow jet at the bottom, it doesn't really care whether the pipe is narrow or much broader provided that you can get enough water flowing through it to drive the turbine. It also means that you can hold back millions of gallons of water with a relatively small dam, provided that the reservoir is only a few feet deep.

I'd assume diminishing returns begin as soon as the outlet is higher than the source bucket, and continues gradually the bigger that gap becomes.

I know it's rough waiting almost three whole minutes.